[address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Allocation Policy

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015, at 13:55, Tore Anderson wrote:
> 
> > If we hadn't done it that way, we would today not have had IPv4
> > addresses at all to allocate to new upcoming organisations.
> 
> Between the old policy (pre last-/8) and the new one, there is a whole
> lot of middleground.

Certainly, but what's being asked for in this thread *is* essentially
the old policy: «If need is justified there has to be a process to
allocate additional IP resources.»

There's no middle ground (that I can think of, anyway) between the old
and the new policy where we won't have to go against the above at some
point, instead telling applicants something like «while your need is
justified, we're sorry, we won't be allocating you what you ask for».

In any case, Nick is right. If someone is unhappy about the current
policy and thinks it could be better, that someone needs to submit an
actual policy proposal. Until that happens it's not much point in
rehashing this dicussion yet another time.

Tore